TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield

JANE LONG SMITH v. TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, 819 A.2d 225 (Conn. 2003)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 2003
Docket
No. SC 16928
Citations
819 A.2d 225263 Conn. 1352003 Conn. LEXIS 125
Cited by 7

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, 1 the plaintiffs, Jane Long Smith, Brett Cleaver and Jennifer Long Cleaver, the executrix of the estate of Evelyn Pay Long (decedent), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, in favor of the defendant, Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts, on the plaintiffs’ claim regarding the construction of a certain deed from the decedent to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly: (1) determined that the language of the deed was ambiguous so as to permit the court to rely on extraneous evidence to ascertain the decedent’s intent in executing the deed; and (2) concluded that *136 the doctrine of the destructibility of contingent remainders did not apply to the deed. 2

Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court’s complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts, 47 Conn. Sup. 618 , 821 A.2d 291 (2002). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55-56 , 787 A.2d 530 (2002).

The judgment is affirmed.

The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

In their brief and oral argument before this court, the plaintiffs also claimed that the trial court improperly rejected their claim that the decedent had held the property only as trustee and, therefore, had no power to convey it to the defendant. Our examination of the record, however, discloses that the plaintiffs did not present this claim to the trial court. Moreover, the trial court did not advert to such a claim in its memorandum of decision, and the plaintiffs did not seek an articulation regarding any such claim. We, therefore, decline to consider it in the present appeal.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
2003: 22004: 22005: 22010: 120032026peak 2003 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque870 A.2d 1116 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
  2. Lachowicz v. Rugens989 A.2d 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)
  3. Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee829 A.2d 927 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
  4. Robichaud v. Hewlett Packard Co.848 A.2d 495 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)
  5. Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee835 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
  6. Plasse v. Commissioner of Revenue Services858 A.2d 278 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)

Most recent

  1. Lachowicz v. Rugens989 A.2d 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)
  2. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque870 A.2d 1116 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
  3. Hayber v. Department of Consumer Protection866 A.2d 644 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
  4. Plasse v. Commissioner of Revenue Services858 A.2d 278 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)
  5. Robichaud v. Hewlett Packard Co.848 A.2d 495 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)
  6. Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee835 A.2d 1054 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Davis v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 787 A.2d 530 (Conn. 2002) 15
Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, 821 A.2d 291 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list